Driver drinking before crash, witness says
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
The driver of a truck involved in a fatal wreck drank beers just before the collision, a witness said Wednesday.
Bryan K. Brown, 41, of Morrow, La., is charged with intoxication manslaughter in the June 7, 2007 wreck that killed Rudy Flores, 52, and Vanessa Jasso, 24. The crash also injured Jasso's 6-year-old son, Jacob Amezquita. The truck the three were in was being driven by Jasso. All three lived in Victoria.
Dan Brown, who is not related to the defendant, was in the back seat of Bryan Brown's truck. The two men and Larry Temple were returning to their jobs on an off-shore oil platform, Dan Brown said.
They came to Victoria so Temple could buy minutes for his cell phone, Dan Brown said. Their last stop in Victoria was at a convenience store, where Temple and Bryan Brown went inside to buy a case of beer, the witness said.
"The case went in the back, with me," Dan Brown said. "Some went in the ice chest up front."
Dan Brown said he drank about two beers. He guessed Temple, who was then 20, drank five or six. Bryan Brown might have had four beers.
"I wasn't counting," the witness said.
Just before the intersection of North Delmar Drive and Lone Tree Road, Dan Brown noticed the truck driven by Jasso was not stopping, he said, and that Bryan Brown was not paying attention.
Dan Brown said he touched the driver on the shoulder and called his name just before the collision.
"It seemed like nobody stopped," Dan Brown said.
The intersection is controlled by four-way stop signs.
Bryan Brown's lawyer, George Filley III, questioned Dan Brown about the police investigation at the scene. Police did not seek Dan Brown for questioning, he said, nor did they administer breath tests for alcohol at the scene.
Dan Brown also said there were more than the 11 beers police photographed for evidence remaining in the 24 pack.
Filley later asked police Sgt. Julian Huerta why no breath test was given at the scene.
"I don't need to use one of those to detect if someone is intoxicated or not," Huerta said.
"You observed the defendant at the scene and did not determine he was intoxicated," Filley said.
An officer with almost 20 years' experience administered the field sobriety tests to Bryan Brown, Huerta said. When questioned, he agreed with Filley that several experienced police were present for the tests.
-
The trial continues at 9 a.m. Thursday in Judge Robert Cheshire's courtroom.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
OMG how many times are they going to run this story? Apparently the jury felt that the prosecution lawyer did not prove their case for drunk driving. The police failed to prove it and he was found not guilty of that crime. He had a trial and was judged by his peers. The sentence was handed down and its over now. If your not happy with the outcome of the trial then you as a citizen of this community need to change the laws. That starts with voting into office competent people to represent you. All the complaining and fussing will not change the outcome of this trial. So just stop. Do something to prevent it from happening again. UGH!
January 27, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.So people lost family members, a child lost a parent, and was also injured all because someone couldn't wait to get home before they started getting drunk.
Talk about defining the meaning of "selfish."
January 27, 2009 at 1:16 a.m.John, they will search your car, I travel the highways & byways on a daily basis & I see it every time I am driving south. Old men, young men, old women, young women, white, hispanic, they are all on the side of the road while their vehicles are rummaged through by DPS officers. One day I counted 8. You are the one missing the clue.
January 15, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.They stop a car for a moving violation but that doesn't mean that they are going to search your car. They aren't going to search and waste there time unless they have a little more to go on....you know like the occupants telling different stories...stuff like that.
you people are clueless
January 15, 2009 at 7:48 p.m.We have Border Patrol checkpoints & yet we are flooded with illegals. 10 in Goliad yesterday & 10 in Cuero today, doesn't seem like the checkpoints are 100% effective. DWI checkpoints will not be any more effective. If they are fixed stations, as Border Patrol is, they had better check licenses & insurance as well, as people without insurance are as big a nuisance as drunks are.
Now the slippery slope scenario I foresee. Illegal drugs are a huge issue. Everybody agrees drugs are bad & the smugglers & dealers are a danger to our society. How will everyone like it when the powers that be decide to have drug check points set up where our cars & persons will be searched for illegal substances. It is already happening when someone is pulled over for moving violations. I have lost count the # of cars I have seen pulled off the highway being searched by DPS & it's people of all races, sex & age. I am of the belief if we give the government an inch, they are going to take 100 miles & by then precedent will have already been set.
January 15, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.wayardwind
While I the agree "I've got nothing to hide crowd" are pretty naive but DWI checkpoints do not violate the 4th Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court has created three exceptions to the rule that seizures without suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment: fixed border patrol checkpoints, fixed sobriety ("DWI") checkpoints, and fixed drivers' license and vehicle registration checkpoints. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). The Court reasoned that, under certain circumstances, the interests of the State in, for example, deterring driving while intoxicated was sufficiently strong that a brief, suspicionless stop at a fixed checkpoint was constitutional
While annoying they do not violate the 4th amendment.
January 15, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.more4you...I don't drink and drive but I am against the checkpoints. You seem to think the Fourth amendment isn't anything to worry about. It'll always be there, won't it? Yeah, right. If enough people have your attitude, "If you have nothing to hide.....," we won't have the amendment to protect us. Millions have sacrificed their blood fighting for the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution and now millions are willing to throw those rights away in the name of convenience or some amorphous safety. Giving up our rights under the Constitution is more dangerous to the nation than any drunk driver.
January 15, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.Proveallthings......Yeah, alcohol was outlawed at one time in this nation. What was the result? Crime syndicates flourished. Little in the way of keeping people from drinking was accomplished. It just made lawbreakers out of the people who wanted a wine or a beer with dinner or at a ball game. It was just as effective as the war on drugs is today.
January 15, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. It's hard for me to believe that, with all the problems facing this nation, anyone would wish to add to the burden of law enforcement by trying to outlaw the consumption of booze -- again. Prohibition was one of the worst mistakes this nation ever made and you want to repeat it. Amazing.
Scannermaster, are you running this ad on every single thread here? I'm a little tired of it.
January 15, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.I can't imagine anyone, who cares for the safety of their family and friends on our roadways, would be against a checkpoint. Forget the inconvience it would cause us or our "rights." We are really just protecting the drunk drivers. If you have nothing to hide, then don't cry. I wish we had them leading into our county. I can't imagine our county attorney liking that though. He would be one to speak out against these checkpoints citing the fourth amendment right. Oh wait...he already has! Wonder why??!!
January 15, 2009 at 12:06 a.m.Sad sad story. Two more victims of drunken drivers. One way to rid of this Evil,' Intoxicated manslaughter' is to outlaw this drug. Pretty sad when you can stop by a covenience store to get a fix. It was outlawed before,,why not outlaw it again?. And why was it outlawed in the past?,,Because men were beating their wifes,,and the children were getting into the cabinets when no one was looking and getting them a little of dads brew. And going into the streets fighting with each other. Yes folks I do believe its time for the DWI checkpoints. Disagree if you will, doesnt bother me. But my heart goes out to anyone who has lost a friend or relative due to drunk drivers. There is No difference between a drug addict and an alcoholic.
January 14, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.